`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`———————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`———————
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`COREPHOTONICS LTD.,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`———————
`
`IPR2020-00897
`U.S. Patent No. 10,324,277
`_______________
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §312 AND 37 C.F.R. §42.104
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,324,277
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................. 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Real Party-in-Interest ........................................................................... 1
`
`Related Matters ..................................................................................... 2
`
`Lead and Back-up Counsel and Service Information .......................... 2
`
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING ........................................................................ 2
`
`IV. NOTE REGARDING PAGE CITATIONS AND EMPHASIS ...................... 3
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ’277 PATENT ............................................................ 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Summary of the ’277 Patent ................................................................. 3
`
`Prosecution History .............................................................................. 6
`
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................................. 7
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 8
`
`VIII. IDENTIFICATION OF HOW THE CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE ...... 9
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Challenged Claims ............................................................................... 9
`
`Statutory Grounds for Challenge.......................................................... 9
`
`Claims 1-3 and 5-8 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Ogino
`Example 4 in view of Bareau. ............................................................ 10
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Summary of Ogino (Example 4) .............................................. 10
`
`Summary of Bareau ................................................................. 13
`
`Reasons to combine Ogino Example 4 and Bareau ................. 14
`
`Claim 1 ..................................................................................... 20
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,324,277
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Claim 2 ..................................................................................... 39
`
`Claim 3 ..................................................................................... 41
`
`Claim 5 ..................................................................................... 43
`
`Claim 6 ..................................................................................... 47
`
`Claim 7 ..................................................................................... 47
`
`10. Claim 8 ..................................................................................... 49
`
`D.
`
`Claims 1-24 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Ogino
`Example 5 in view of Bareau. ............................................................ 51
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Summary of Ogino (Example 5) .............................................. 51
`
`Reasons to combine Ogino Example 5 and Bareau ................. 53
`
`Claim 1 ..................................................................................... 59
`
`Claim 2 ..................................................................................... 76
`
`Claim 3 ..................................................................................... 78
`
`Claim 4 ..................................................................................... 79
`
`Claim 5 ..................................................................................... 80
`
`Claim 6 ..................................................................................... 84
`
`Claim 7 ..................................................................................... 85
`
`10. Claim 8 ..................................................................................... 86
`
`11. Claim 9 ..................................................................................... 88
`
`12. Claim 10 ................................................................................... 90
`
`13. Claim 11 ................................................................................... 91
`
`14. Claim 12 ................................................................................... 95
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,324,277
`
`15. Claim 13 ................................................................................... 95
`
`16. Claim 14 ................................................................................... 95
`
`17. Claim 15 ................................................................................... 96
`
`18. Claim 16 ................................................................................... 96
`
`19. Claim 17 ................................................................................... 97
`
`20. Claim 18 ................................................................................... 97
`
`21. Claim 19 ................................................................................. 100
`
`22. Claim 20 ................................................................................. 100
`
`23. Claim 21 ................................................................................. 101
`
`24. Claim 22 ................................................................................. 101
`
`25. Claim 23 ................................................................................. 101
`
`26. Claim 24 ................................................................................. 101
`
`IX. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................102
`
`CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT ....................................................................103
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ..............................................................................104
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,324,277
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`May 4, 2020
`
`APPL-1001 U.S. Patent No. 10,324,277
`
`APPL-1002 Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 10,324,277
`
`APPL-1003 Declaration of José Sasián, Ph.D, under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68
`
`APPL-1004 Curriculum Vitae of José Sasián
`
`APPL-1005 U.S. Patent No. 9,128,267 to Ogino et al. (“Ogino”)
`
`APPL-1006 Warren J. Smith, MODERN LENS DESIGN (1992) (“Smith”)
`
`APPL-1007 William S. Beich et al., “Polymer Optics: A manufacturer’s
`perspective on the factors that contribute to successful programs,”
`SPIE Proceedings Volume 7788, Polymer Optics Design,
`Fabrication, and Materials (August 12, 2010),
`https://doi.org/10.1117/12.861364 (“Beich”)
`
`APPL-1008 U.S. Patent No. 7,777,972 to Chen et al. (“Chen”)
`
`APPL-1009 Reserved
`
`APPL-1010 Max Born et al., PRINCIPLES OF OPTICS, 6th Ed. (1980) (“Born”)
`
`APPL-1011 Prosecution history of U.S. Patent No. 9,128,267 to Ogino
`
`APPL-1012 Jane Bareau et al., “The optics of miniature digital camera
`modules,” SPIE Proceedings Volume 6342, International Optical
`Design Conference 2006; 63421F (2006)
`https://doi.org/10.1117/12.692291 (“Bareau”)
`
`APPL-1013 Rudolf Kingslake, OPTICS IN PHOTOGRAPHY (1992) (“Kingslake”)
`
`v
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,324,277
`
`APPL-1014 U.S. Patent No. 7,859,588 to Parulski et al. (“Parulski”)
`
`APPL-1015 Japanese Patent Pub. No. JP2013106289 to Konno et al. and
`certified English translation
`
`APPL-1016 Bruce J. Walker, OPTICAL ENGINEERING FUNDAMENTALS (1995)
`(“Walker”)
`
`APPL-1017 Robert E. Fischer, Optical System Design (2008) (“Fischer”)
`
`APPL-1018 Michael P. Schaub, THE DESIGN OF PLASTIC OPTICAL
`SYSTEMS (2009) (“Schaub”)
`
`APPL-1019 Optical Society of America, HANDBOOK OF OPTICS, vol. II 2nd
`ed. (1995) (“Handbook of Optics”)
`
`APPL-1020 U.S. Patent No. 10,324,273 to Chen et al. (“Chen”)
`
`APPL-1021 U.S. Patent No. 9,857,568
`
`APPL-1022 U.S. Patent No. 9,568,712
`
`APPL-1023 Deposition Transcript of Duncan Moore, Ph.D. in IPR2018-01140
`
`APPL-1024 U.S. Patent No. 7,321,475 to Wang et al.
`
`APPL-1025 U.S. Patent No. 8,508,648 to Kubota et al.
`
`APPL-1026 Reserved
`
`APPL-1027 Email from Patent Owner’s counsel authorizing electronic service
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,324,277
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,324,277 (“the ’277 patent,” APPL-1001) is generally
`
`directed to “[a]n optical lens assembly [that] includes five lens elements and
`
`provides a TTL/EFL<1.0.” APPL-1001, Abstract. The claims of the ’277 patent
`
`similarly recite “a plurality of refractive lens elements” with a number of
`
`limitations such as “at least one surface of at least one of the plurality of lens
`
`elements is aspheric,” “wherein a ratio TTL/EFL is less than 1.0,” and “wherein a
`
`lens assembly F # is smaller than 2.9.” APPL-1001, 8:21-36. As shown in this
`
`Petition, these concepts in a lens assembly with five lens elements were known in
`
`the art before the priority date of the ’277 patent.
`
`This Petition, along with the cited evidence, demonstrates that claims 1-5
`
`(all claims) of the ’277 patent are obvious under post-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103. Apple
`
`Inc. (“Petitioner”) therefore respectfully requests that these claims be found
`
`unpatentable and cancelled.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES
`A. Real Party-in-Interest
`
`The real party-in-interest is Apple Inc.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,324,277
`
`B. Related Matters
`
`As of the filing date of this Petition and to the best knowledge of the
`
`Petitioner, the ’277 patent has been asserted in Corephotonics, Ltd. v. Apple Inc.,
`
`Case No. 5-18-cv-02555 (N.D. Cal. filed Apr. 30, 2018).
`
`C. Lead and Back-up Counsel and Service Information
`
`Lead Counsel
`Michael S. Parsons
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`2323 Victory Ave. Suite 700
`Dallas, TX 75219
`
`Back-up Counsel
`Andrew S. Ehmke
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`2323 Victory Ave. Suite 700
`Dallas, TX 75219
`
`Jordan Maucotel
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`2323 Victory Ave. Suite 700
`Dallas, TX 75219
`
`
`
`Phone: (972) 739-8611
`Fax: (214) 200-0853
`michael.parsons.ipr@haynesboone.com
`USPTO Reg. No. 58,767
`
`
`Phone: (214) 651-5116
`Fax: (214) 200-0853
`andy.ehmke.ipr@haynesboone.com
`USPTO Reg. No. 50,271
`
`Phone: (972) 739-8621
`Fax: (214) 200-0853
`jordan.maucotel.ipr@haynesboone.com
`USPTO Reg. No. 69,438
`
`Please address all correspondence to lead and back-up counsel. Petitioner
`
`consents to electronic service via email.
`
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`
`Petitioner certifies that the ’277 patent is eligible for inter partes review and
`
`that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting inter partes review
`
`2
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,324,277
`
`challenging the patent claims on the grounds identified in this Petition. Petitioner
`
`has not filed a civil action challenging the validity of any claim of the ’277 patent.
`
`IV. NOTE REGARDING PAGE CITATIONS AND EMPHASIS
`
`Petitioner’s citations to APPL-1002 and APPL-1011 use the page numbers
`
`added for compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(d)(2)(ii). Petitioner’s citations to the
`
`remaining exhibits use the page numbers in their original publication. All bold
`
`underline emphasis in any quoted material has been added.
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ’277 PATENT
`Summary of the ’277 Patent
`A.
`
`The ’277 patent is directed to “[a]n optical lens assembly [that] includes five
`
`lens elements and provides a TTL/EFL<1.0” and is allegedly the answer to the
`
`need for good quality imaging and a small total track length. See APPL-1001,
`
`Abstract, 1:33-36. The ratio of TTL (“total track length”) over EFL (“effective
`
`focal length”) being less than one indicates a telephoto lens system. See APPL-
`
`1006, p.169. An example of the claimed lens system is provided below:
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,324,277
`
`APPL-1001, Fig. 1A.
`
`
`
`APPL-1001, Fig. 1.
`
`As discussed below, none of the claimed characteristics were new. APPL-
`
`1003, p.16. Prior to July 4, 2013, five element lens assemblies for mobile phones
`
`were well known, including telephoto lenses. See APPL-1003, p.16; APPL-1005,
`
`Fig. 6, 1:52-56, 8:8-25; APPL-1006, pp.169-82. For example, Ogino (APPL-1005)
`
`teaches a similar five lens system with a TTL to EFL ratio of less than one. APPL-
`
`1003, p.16; see APPL-1005, Figs. 4, 5, Tables 7, 9. Ogino’s lens system also
`
`includes several other features consistent with the ’277 patent including the shape
`
`of the lenses and the ratio between the thicknesses of the first lens on the optical
`
`axis versus the edge being less than 3.0. See APPL-1005, Fig. 4, Table 7.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,324,277
`
`A POSITA also would have understood that Ogino renders the ’277 Patent
`
`obvious because it discloses telephoto assemblies that satisfy the relationships of
`
`f1<TTL/2, and 1.2×|f3|>|f2|>1.5×f1. APPL-1003, p.17. While the ’277 Patent
`
`emphasizes the “features” of a “relatively large distance between” L3 and L4 and
`
`the “combined design” of L4 and L5 having “different dispersions” and respective
`
`positive and negative powers that “help in minimizing chromatic aberration” (see
`
`APPL-1001, 2:51-57), these “features” were already known and used in existing
`
`systems for obtaining sharp images. APPL-1003, p.17.
`
`Specifically, Ogino discloses these features in its examples, including L4
`
`and L5 combined (and similarly separated by small gap) having opposite refractive
`
`powers, and specifically emphasizes the importance of a large gap between L3 and
`
`L4. See APPL-1005, 3:16, 12:45-63. Based on these teaching from Ogino, a
`
`POSITA would have understood that the ’277 Patent’s claims are not novel, but
`
`would have been within the knowledge and skill of a POSITA implementing and
`
`experimenting with Ogino’s disclosures. APPL-1003, p.17. As for any difference
`
`that Patent Owner might argue in the sign difference and Abbe number between L4
`
`and L5 in Ogino, POSITAs have been long aware of these various ways of
`
`implementing this aspect of telephoto lenses. See APPL-1006, pp.170-82.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,324,277
`
`As a result, the disclosures provided in Ogino and Bareau and the other prior
`
`art discussed below renders obvious each and every element of the claims of the
`
`’277 patent. APPL-1003, p.18.
`
`B.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`The ’277 patent issued on June 18, 2019 from U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`15/817,235 (“the ’235 application”) filed on November 19, 2017. See APPL-1001.
`
`The ’277 patent is a continuation of a string of applications claiming priority to
`
`Provisional Application No. 61/842,987 filed on July 4, 2013. See id.
`
`The ’235 application was originally filed with 24. APPL-1002, pp.11-14.
`
`The sole Office Action issued a nonstatutory double patenting rejection (id.,
`
`pp.497-500) that was overcome by terminal disclaimer. See id., pp.566-581. A
`
`Notice of Allowance was issued on February 25, 2019 where the Examiner stated
`
`that none of the considered prior art disclosed all of the limitations in the claims.
`
`Id., p.595.
`
`As observed by the prosecution history, the prior art presented here does not
`
`appear to have been cited or relied on by the Examiner and thus was not used as a
`
`basis for allowing the claims. See APPL- 1002, p.595. Although the Ogino
`
`reference was presented to the Examiner in an IDS, there is no evidence that it
`
`were considered because it was not applied against any of the claims during
`
`prosecution. See id., p.595. Also, it appears that the Examiner did not review the
`
`6
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,324,277
`
`references listed in the IDS where Ogino was listed because the Examiner’s
`
`signature is missing. See id., p.375. Thus, the prior art presented in this petition to
`
`render the claims obvious was not cited by the Examiner and was therefore not
`
`used as a basis for allowing the claims. APPL-1003, p.17.
`
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`The level of ordinary skill in the art may be reflected by the prior art of
`
`record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re
`
`GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Here, a person having ordinary
`
`skill in the art (“POSITA”) would include someone who had, at the priority date of
`
`the ’277 patent, (i) a bachelor’s degree in Physics, Optical Sciences, or
`
`equivalent training, as well as (ii) approximately three years of experience in
`
`designing multi-lens optical systems. APPL-1003, p.11. Such a person would
`
`have had experience in analyzing, tolerancing, adjusting, and optimizing multi-
`
`lens systems for manufacturing, and would have been familiar with the
`
`specifications of lens systems. Id. In addition, a POSITA would have known
`
`how to use lens design software such as Code V, Oslo, or Zemax, and would
`
`have taken a lens design course. Id. Lack of work experience can be remedied by
`
`additional education, and vice versa. Id.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,324,277
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`The challenged claims of the ’277 Patent are construed herein “using the
`
`same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a
`
`civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b).” 37 C.F.R. §42.100(b) (Nov. 13, 2018). For
`
`terms not addressed below, Petitioner submits that no specific construction is
`
`necessary for this proceeding.1
`
`In IPR2018-011402, the Board construed the following terms as indicated
`
`below:
`
`• Effective Focal Length (EFL): “the focal length of a lens assembly.”
`
`• Total Track Length (TTL): “the length of the optical axis spacing
`between the object-side surface of the first lens element and one of: an
`electronic sensor, a film sensor, and an image plane corresponding to
`either the electronic sensor or a film sensor.”
`
`
`1 Petitioner does not concede that any term not construed herein meets the statutory
`
`requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
`
`2 IPR2018-01140 is directed to U.S. Pat. No. 9,402,032. The Board entered the
`
`same constructions in IPR2018-01146 directed to U.S. Pat. No. 9,568,712. Both
`
`patents belong to the same family as the ’277 Patent and are currently appealed on
`
`other grounds.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,324,277
`
`See IPR2018-01140, Paper 37, pp.10-18. The analysis below relies on these
`
`constructions which are sufficient here for showing how the challenged claims are
`
`unpatentable by prior art.
`
`VIII. IDENTIFICATION OF HOW THE CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`A. Challenged Claims
`
`Claims 1-24 of the ’277 patent are challenged in this petition.
`
`B.
`
`Statutory Grounds for Challenge
`
`Ground
`
`Claims
`
`1
`
`2
`
`1-3 and 5-8
`
`1-24
`
`Reason
`Obvious over the combination of Ogino
`Example 4 and Bareau.
`
`Obvious over the combination of Ogino
`Example 5 and Bareau.
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,128,267 to Ogino (APPL-1005, “Ogino”) was filed on
`
`March 26, 2014 and claims priority to Japanese Application No. 2013-072282 filed
`
`on March 29, 2013. Ogino’s file history (APPL-1011) shows that its application
`
`was filed in English (see id., pp.209-87) and a certified copy of the Japanese
`
`application was received by the Patent Office (see id., pp.146-85). Accordingly,
`
`Ogino is prior art under §102(a)(2) as of its Japanese filing date.
`
`Jane Bareau et al., “The optics of miniature digital camera modules” (2006)
`
`(APPL-1012, “Bareau”) was both presented publicly and published in 2006 (see
`
`APPL-1003, ¶70) and is prior art under §102(a)(1).
`
`9
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,324,277
`
`C. Claims 1-3 and 5-8 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Ogino
`Example 4 in view of Bareau.
`
`1.
`
`Summary of Ogino (Example 4)
`
`Similar to the lens system described in the ’277 patent, Ogino discloses a
`
`five-lens system for use in portable devices. See APPL-1005, Abstract, 1:6-16. In
`
`fact, Ogino’s lens system is similarly designed for use in portable devices such as
`
`“a digital still camera, a cellular phone with a camera, a mobile information
`
`terminal (PDA: Personal Digital Assistance), a smartphone, a tablet terminal, and a
`
`mobile game machine, on which the imaging lens is mounted to perform
`
`photography.” APPL-1005, 1:11-16. Ogino’s lens system is also similarly designed
`
`to meet a demand for five-lens systems in portable devices to “to enhance the
`
`resolution and performance of the imaging lens.” APPL-1005, 1:30-31.
`
`Ogino’s Example 4, applied to claims 1-3 and 5-8 below, includes five
`
`lenses, each lens having an aspheric surface. Id., 1005, 13:4-5. In each
`
`embodiment, the lens system includes “in order from the object side, five lenses”
`
`of “the first lens L1 that has a positive refractive power …; the second lens L2 …;
`
`the third lens L3 …; the fourth lens L4 …; and the fifth lens L5 ….” Id., 13:8-16.
`
`Example 4 is represented in Fig. 4:
`
`10
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,324,277
`
`
`
`APPL-1005, Fig. 4.
`
`In Example 4, lens elements L1-L5 are arranged in order along the optical
`
`axis which includes a cover glass (CG) “disposed between the fifth lens L5 and the
`
`imaging device 100 ….” APPL-1005, 13:4-5, 5:55-6:2. Example 4 is further
`
`described by the prescription data in Table 7:
`
`11
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,324,277
`
`
`
`APPL-1005, 19:28-40, 20:28-40 (Table 7). Table 7 also provides “the focal length
`
`f of the whole system (mm)” designated as “f = 4.555,” and “the total lens length
`
`TL (mm)” or total track length without the cover glass element is designated as
`
`“TL = 4.260.” APPL-1005, 14:47-50, 19:28-30. The total track length with the
`
`optical member CG is 4.362 and can be calculated by summing the widths D1 to
`
`D13.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,324,277
`
`2.
`
`Summary of Bareau
`
`Bareau describes how “[d]esigning lenses for cell phone cameras is different
`
`from designing for traditional imaging systems” (see APPL-1012, p.1) and offers
`
`“typical lens specifications” for use in cellular telephones, include an f-number of
`
`2.8 or less to provide enough light to ¼” sensors and smaller pixel formats. Id.,
`
`pp.3-4. Bareau also indicates a preference for a short TTL (about 5.0 mm) to
`
`achieve thinner cell phones and maintaining relative illumination at the edge of the
`
`field of greater than 50 percent. Id., pp.3,7. A POSITA would have understood
`
`these to be general specifications with some modifications allowed depending on
`
`the specific implementation, sensor, and desired purpose. See APPL-1024 (Wang),
`
`1:30-53. Bareau also describes the understanding of a POSITA that designing
`
`lenses with a low f-number has been and continues to be an important trend in lens
`
`design. See, e.g., id., pp.3-4.
`
`Bareau therefore serves as evidence that a POSITA would have considered
`
`two main driving factors for cell phone lens specifications including a small total
`
`track length (TTL) to make the overall cell phone thin and a low f-number to allow
`
`enough light to reach the sensor pixels. See, e.g., id., pp.3-4; APPL-1013, p.104
`
`(indicating a general desire to design “faster” lenses for brighter images).
`
`Thus, a POSITA designing lens assemblies for use in a cell phone would
`
`have been informed by Bareau to design or modify a lens system that fit within the
`
`13
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,324,277
`
`specifications including maintaining a short track length, an f-number of 2.8 or
`
`lower for ¼” and smaller sensor formats, and relative illumination greater than 50
`
`percent. APPL-1003, p.27.
`
`3.
`
`Reasons to combine Ogino Example 4 and Bareau
`
`A POSITA would have found it obvious to modify Ogino’s Example 4 lens
`
`assembly in view of Bareau’s specifications for cell phone camera lenses with an f-
`
`number of 2.8 or less for ¼” and smaller image sensors. Such a combination would
`
`have been nothing more than applying Bareau’s specification for a brighter lens
`
`system for smaller image sensors, according to known lens design and
`
`modification methods (as taught in APPL-1017, p.172), to yield a predictable
`
`result of Ogino’s Example 4 lens assemblies likewise providing an f-number of 2.8
`
`or lower. See APPL-1003, p.27; APPL-1012, id., pp.3-4.
`
`Bareau was published in 2006. APPL-1012, p.1. By 2013 (the priority date
`
`of the ’277 patent), having a cell phone lens with an f-number of 2.8 or lower for a
`
`¼” and smaller sensors was common and it was at least expected that cell phone
`
`camera lenses would satisfy similar specifications. See id., p.3; APPL-1024, 1:38-
`
`42; APPL-1025, 4:54-67. A POSITA’s desire to achieve lens designs with lower f-
`
`numbers was also well known and driven by a recognized need for “faster” lenses.
`
`See APPL-1015, p.104 (“The tremendous efforts of lens designers and
`
`manufacturers that have been devoted to the production of lenses of extremely high
`
`14
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,324,277
`
`relative aperture are an indication of the need that exists for brighter images and
`
`‘faster’ lenses.”); APPL-1025, 4:54-67 (“imaging lenses are significantly required
`
`to have brightness, i.e., a small F number ... there are attempts to decrease an F
`
`number of an imaging lens.”). To have a competitive lens design, a POSITA
`
`therefore would have sought to modify existing lens designs to achieve faster f-
`
`numbers like 2.8 while still maintaining a short total track length appropriate for
`
`thin cell phone designs. APPL-1003, p.28.
`
`For example, the knowledge of a POSITA with regard to lens performance is
`
`evidenced by Wang (APPL-1024), which discusses “an image pick-up lens system
`
`[that] needs to satisfy the oft-conflicting requirements compactness, low cost, and
`
`excellent optical performance.” Wang further describes that “[e]xcellent optical
`
`performance can be classified into the following four main requirements: First, a
`
`high brightness requirement, which means that the lens system should have a small
`
`F number (FNo.) Generally, the FNo. should be 2.8 or less.” APPL-1024, 1:38-
`
`42. A POSITA thus would have been aware of Bareau’s specifications for lens
`
`assemblies designed for modern cellular telephones and particularly the importance
`
`of supporting a faster f-number for smaller pixel sensor formats, and in particular,
`
`an f-number of 2.8 or less. APPL-1003, p.30.
`
`Consequently, a POSITA looking to implement a telephoto lens in a cell
`
`phone with a common ¼” sensor format would have been motivated to look to lens
`
`15
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,324,277
`
`designs like Ogino’s that could support a lower, more desirable F number since
`
`Ogino’s other embodiments support f-numbers values down to 2.45 (noting that
`
`the f-numbers of Ogino’s Examples 1-3 and 6, which all utilize a similar structure
`
`to Example 4, are much lower being respectively set at 2.47, 2.46, 2.45, and 2.64).
`
`See APPL-1003, p.29; APPL-1005, Figs. 8-10, 13. Thus, modifying Ogino’s
`
`Example 4 lens assembly to have an F number of 2.8, as taught in Bareau, would
`
`have been nothing more than applying Bareau’s specification of an F# of 2.8 for a
`
`¼” image sensor format according to known lens design methods (as taught in
`
`Fischer (APPL-1017)) to allow Example 4 to likewise better support a ¼” sensor
`
`format in a thin cell phone.
`
`While Bareau specifies a field of view (FOV) of 60 degrees, this would have
`
`been understood to be merely a design consideration since most cell phones at the
`
`time used a single wide lens camera. See, e.g., APPL-1005, Figs. 14, 15. A
`
`POSITA designing a cell phone with both wide and telephoto lenses using the
`
`same sensor format, (see, e.g., APPL-1014, Fig.16), though, would have
`
`recognized that Bareau’s specifications for f-number and TTL would still be highly
`
`relevant to incorporating a telephoto lens like Example 4 since TTL controls the
`
`thickness of the cell phone and the F number indicates how much light reaches the
`
`¼” image sensor pixels regardless of a lens’s focal length or FOV. See APPL-
`
`1003, p.31; APPL-1012, pp.3-4. Based on these considerations, a POSITA seeking
`
`16
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,324,277
`
`a telephoto lens with a low f-number would have looked to modify Ogino’s
`
`Example 4 since Ogino’s other examples support lower F numbers and modifying
`
`an existing lens design takes far less time than starting from scratch, as lens
`
`designers often start with designs from examples in patent literature. See e.g.,
`
`APPL-1003, p.31; APPL-1006, p.49 (referencing a large set of lens designs
`
`provided “to serve as a set of suitable starting designs.”).
`
`A POSITA would have understood that one way of modifying Ogino’s
`
`Example 4 to decrease the f-number is to increase the diameter of one or more lens
`
`elements, particularly the first lens since this lens serves as the entrance aperture,
`
`also known as the entrance pupil diameter (EPD). APPL-1003, p.30. This is due to
`
`the relationship between F#, focal length (EFL), and the diameter of the entrance
`
`aperture which controls the amount of light that enters the assembly:
`
`𝑓𝑓-𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛=
`
`𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑑𝑑𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛=𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
`𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
`
`APPL-1003, p.32; see APPL-1016, p.59. Given the arrangement of the lenses in
`
`Example 4 where the aperture is located behind the first lens L1, a POSITA would
`
`have recognized that the increasing the diameter of L1 would thereby also increase
`
`the aperture and allow more light to enter the system. See APPL-1016, p.60, 67-69
`
`(explaining that a change in the entrance pupil or aperture stop leads to a change in
`
`the diameter of the lens).
`
`17
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,324,277
`
`Modifying Example 4 to achieve the Bareau’s preferred f-number of 2.8 and
`
`using well-known lens design software to find the best solution, a POSITA would
`
`have arrived at one possible lens design as shown below:
`
`Ogino Example 4 (F#=3.04)
`
`Example 4 modified with F#=2.8
`
`
`
`APPL-1003, p.32, Appendix, Figs. 1A, 2A.
`
`Modified Example 4 above provides an f-number of 2.8 while maintaining
`
`similar design and performance characteristics when compared to the original
`
`Example 4 design. This is shown by comparing the analysis produced by Zemax
`
`below:
`
`18
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,324,277
`
`Relative Illumination of
`Ogino Example 4 (F#=3.04)
`
`Relative Illumination of
`Example 5 modified with F#=2.8
`
`
`
`Id., Appendix, Figs. 1B, 2B.
`
`Ogino Example 4 (F#=3.04)
`
`Example 4 modified with F#=2.8
`
`
`
`Id., Appendix, Figs. 1C, 2C.
`
`As indicated in the analysis below Ogino’s Example 4 lens assembly
`
`modified for an f-number of 2.8 as shown above continues to meet all of the
`
`limitations of claim 1. Id., p.34.
`
`19
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,324,277
`
`Based on the foregoing reasons, a POSITA would have found it obvious,
`
`desirable, and predictable to lower the f-number of Ogino’s Example 4 lens
`
`assembly to 2.8 based on Bareau’s cell phone lens specifications and would have
`
`succeeded in doing so as evidenced by the modified designs above. APPL-1003,
`
`p.33. A claim chart corresponding to the analysis below is contained in Dr.
`
`Sasián’s expert declaration. See APPL-1003, pp.34-60.
`
`4.
`
`Claim 1
`
` [1.0] A lens assembly, comprising: a plurality of refractive lens elements
`arranged along an optical axis,
`
`Ogino discloses this limitation because the lens assembly of Example 4
`
`includes a plurality of lens elements (labeled L1-L5) spaced apart along an optical
`
`axis (labeled Z1) as shown in Fig. 4 below.
`
`20
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,324,277
`
`Optical Axis Z1
`
`Plurality of Refractive Lens Elements L1 to L5
`
`
`
`APPL-1003, p.35; APPL-1005, Fig.4 (annotated).
`
`As shown in Fig. 4, Ogino teaches that each lens L1 to L5 is a refractive
`
`lens: “the positive refractive power of the first lens L1” (APPL-1005, 9:11-12),
`
`“the refractive power of the second lens L2” (Id., 9:29), “third lens L3 has a
`
`negative refractive power” or “a positive refractive power” (Id., 7:51-53), “fourth